[ale] [OT] Big Brother Wins, We lose... From /. Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0

[Jerald Sheets]

Not only that, I find that this topic has been considerably more well  
behaved than many in the past.  In fact, the only flaming I saw (and  
forgive me for skimming a lot...it's what I do to political  
conversations I'm not horribly interested in)
  was in regards to *NOT* posting political discussion!

The actual political discussion was pretty civil...


--j

On May 12, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Brian Stanaland wrote:

> I didn't look at it that way.  People who don't us the OT won't use
> any other kind of label, either.  I sometimes enjoy these threads.  I
> get to see things from all kinds of perspectives.  Points are brought
> up that I never would have thought of.  Not saying I've "changed" my
> mind about some things because of it, but I have without a doubt
> modified my thinking some.  And isn't that what lists are about?  It
> may be OT, sometimes VERY OT, but it's all about the exchange of ideas
> and information.
>
> Brian....
>
>
> On 5/12/05, ChangingLINKS.com <groups at changinglinks.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday May 12 2005 07:53, Geoffrey wrote:
>>
>>> ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Next time, argue that people should use OT in the subject line.
>>>> Everyone agrees that the use of [OT] is considerate and allows  
>>>> those not
>>>> wishing to see these political threads a way to filter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Better yet, use [PT] 'Political Topic', hence folks who simply  
>>> aren't
>>> interested in building on the flamewar can filter on that.
>>>
>>
>> I vote against the [PT] .
>> My thinking is that if we can't get people to USE [OT]  
>> consistently, there is
>> no way they will remember to use [PT]. I thought that telling  
>> people to use
>> [OT] would be a solution, BUT then there will be tons of flamewars  
>> on what is
>> "[OT] or not." A better solution is to charge $1 for failing to  
>> use [OT] -
>> but again, enforcement of that rule would cause enforcement  
>> flamewars. :)
>>
>>
>>> Seriously,
>>> there's never been any productive discussions on politics on this  
>>> list.
>>> Nothing is gained, people just blow the bandwidth.
>>>
>>
>> There IS something gained in these flamewars.
>>    If there wasn't, they wouldn't happen.
>>     I can think of numerous benefits off of the top of my head.
>>
>> Likewise, the "wasting/blowing bandwidth" objection gets repeated  
>> everytime a
>> discussion is [OT]. The objection is not only invalid, but just as
>> "non-productive" as the original thread. Still, apparently there  
>> IS a benefit
>> for restating the false argument of "saving bandwidth."
>>
>> Flamewars, Saving bandwidth and other seemingly pointless  
>> behaviors will
>> always be a part of this list. The "wise" don't participate, post  
>> worthless
>> objections, or even post objections TO those objections.
>> --
>> Wishing you Happiness, Joy, and Laughter,
>> Drew Brown
>> http://www.ChangingLINKS.com
>>
>> /objection to an objection
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> "Anyone who has the power to make
> you believe absurdities has the power
> to make you commit atrocities."
>
> -- Voltaire
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

Jerald M. Sheets jr.
Sr. UNIX Systems Administrator
McKesson, Inc.
404.293.8762